You're viewing part of a thread.
I tried to read this over breakfast, which consisted of very mellow bowl of jungle oats (no extra flavour) and some semi-terrible filter coffee. and I gotta tell ya, both of those fairly mellow things were better than the entire first quarter of this post
the author seems to be trying to whiteknight some general idea of maybe some progress isn't bad and "well obviously there will be some bad associations too", while willfully excluding the direct and overt bad actions of those associated bad actors?
admittedly I only got a quarter of the post in (since my oats ran out - scandalous), but up until that point I hadn't really found anything worthwhile beyond the squirrelly abdication bullshit
@froztbyte maybe my breakfast (untoasted muesli, coconut yoghurt) started me in a different frame of mind. I read it as showing that a lot of these ideas, which, yes, some jerks (but also plenty of non-jerks) are into, have deeper left histories, and deserve serious consideration.
The only people mentioned who are not the usual rogue's gallery (MuskThielSBF) are Marx/Engels, JB Haldane, John Desmond Bernal (who??) and this fucking guy:
Max More was one of the libertarian thinkers (non-billionaire) who helped shape modern transhumanism.
Oh he's not a billionaire, obviously he is Of The Left.
(I quickly googled this dude of whom I have never heard and didn't find any obvious techfash red flags, but maybe he's better at hiding them than most others)
Anyway, extropianism!
like all arguments from first principles, the Extropians encountered problems when trying to extrapolate derivative principles, like political economy. While the Extropian ideas went in an anti-state direction, their logic leads just as naturally to the Enlightenment Left’s conclusion that humanity should take our collective future in hand through democratic deliberation or the guidance of “scientific socialism,”
"OK so right now it's basically fascist feudalism, but it could be socialism", got it.
More weird framings
But some effective altruists, most famously the crypto scammer and donor to the Democratic Party Sam Bankman-Fried,
Outside the "not all EAs!" crowd I haven't seen this before, but the authors are "democratic socialists" which basically means they hate the Democrats more than the GOP.
I can kinda agree on their take on Cosmism, which AFAIK is really fringe (I mean, I have heard of Fyodorov, but I have read a lot of SF), but even here they can't really refrain from oohing over the "weird and wonderful" Russian cosmists, while perfunctorily noting that they're all fascists now.
Russian Cosmists also prefigured a version of eco-philosophy, emphasizing the unity of all living beings and the interconnectedness of the universe. Cosmists believed that all forms of life, including animals and plants, were part of a universal whole. They advocated for the ethical treatment of all living creatures and the preservation of biodiversity.
The Izborsky Club explicitly condemns the technocratic “transhumanism” of Western thought, including individualism, rationalism, democracy, capitalism and transgender rights, as contrary to their “technocratic traditionalist” Cosmism. The Izborsky Club reflects the swirl of NazBol ideas in contemporary Russia, attempting to merge Russian Orthodoxy, Bolshevik authoritarianism and fascist “Eurasian” racial-nationalism. [....] In other words actual organized Russian Cosmists today despise TESCREAL ideas and their Western proponents.
But both Musk and Thiel hate trans people, but trans treatment is essentially transhumanism, how can we square this circle? It is a mystery.
Outside the “not all EAs!” crowd I haven’t seen this before, but the authors are “democratic socialists” which basically means they hate the Democrats more than the GOP.
the more I read, the more I get the sinking suspicion that the authors are cherry-flavored fascists who are particularly bad at smuggling their ideas under a thin guise of leftist thought
Max More is a full on ancap libertarian, though in the context of technoprogressivism
Going by the flow of nominative determinism, this is one remarkable and poignant name in that case
no, they are at best the colonial liberal strain of technoprogressive, and only "left" of the out and out techfash. the technoprogressive transhumanist offering is that in the future, everyone will be a middle class white man!
i mean, at least they thought the idea was to bring the rest of humanity along with them. but they still share in the same selection of poison pills. including "positive" eugenics, for example.
you are aware that you just repeated the exact pattern that I pointed out the author did?
@froztbyte kinda, but with a different emphasis. The author talks about specific ideas and their origins, and asks that try to build a positive left futurism, and not cede the field to a subset of 2020s Silicon Valley interpretations of those ideas. If eg transhumanism was interesting and worth exploring before Peter Thiel turned up, it can still be so afterwards.
but transhumanism wasn’t interesting before Thiel showed up. it started as an Italian proto-fascist movement and to this day it hasn’t shaken its association with fascism and white supremacy
if there’s any deeper leftism in the post you linked, you’d best quote it — cause all I’m seeing from my skim through is dollar store Marx and literally a paragraph of poorly-cited Eco used to somehow justify the idea that opposition to TESCREAL ideas is due to a conspiratorial mindset and membership in a cult. I’m seeing a bunch of shit flung at folks like Timnit who’ve put more apparent thought into TESCREAL than anything I’m seeing in that post
so show me the good part
@self No, transhumanism goes back before Italian proto-fascists like Marinetti–it arrived in the west via translations of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky but he learned it from his teacher, the Russian Orthodox theologian and inventor of Cosmism, Nikolai Fyodorovitch Fyodorov.
It's 19th century Russian Orthodox theological heresy. Transhumanism is just Christianity in god-free, jesus-free, drag.
no, at best it's the more benign and fluffy end of the Californian Ideology, it's still extremely much the same thing